If you're looking for input on which presidential candidate to choose, there are a lot of things to consider: Which of two people is most able to win an election and which is better suited to serve as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, chief executive of the United States, and leader of the free world.

So, who would you ask? Why, you'd ask someone who has failed in seeking that job, not once, but twice! And few people can make that claim, but one of them, Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, First of That Name, Dowager-Empress of Chappaqua, has weighed in on this very topic in an essay published Tuesday in the New York Times.

Let's take a closer look at a couple of her key points.

Mr. Biden has done a hard and rare thing. Serving as president was a lifelong dream. And when he finally got there, he was exceptionally good at it. To give that up, to accept that finishing the job meant passing the baton, took real moral clarity. The country mattered more. As one who shared that dream and has had to make peace with letting it go, I know this wasn’t easy. But it was the right thing to do.

Yeah, Joe Biden was never exceptionally good at anything in his long political career, except graft — one has to admit, he was pretty good at that. He was arguably one of the worst — maybe the worst — presidents in American history. That, mind you, puts him up against ciphers like Andrew Johnson and Jimmy Carter. He was propped up by the Democratic Party apparatus, which went to great lengths to hide the president's ongoing deterioration until they just couldn't hide it anymore — and then they unceremoniously showed him the door.

On candidate Harris, Her Imperial Majesty writes:

There is now an even sharper, clearer choice in this election. On one side is a convicted criminal who cares only about himself and is trying to turn back the clock on our rights and our country. On the other is a savvy former prosecutor and successful vice president who embodies our faith that America’s best days are still ahead. It’s old grievances versus new solutions.

A sharper, clearer voice? If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is surely worth a million:

That's a "sharper, clearer" voice? The queen of word salads? She of the "what can be, unburdened by what has been " nonsense? On teleprompter, Kamala Harris is only marginally intelligible; when speaking extemporaneously, she's abysmal. The ability to speak intelligently, without a script, a teleprompter, or even notes, is a good sign of intellectual ability — intelligence, if you like. And Kamala Harris can't do that. Conclude from that what you will.

See Related: Amid Democrat Jubilation Over Kamala Harris, Electoral Reality Comes Flying in Off the Top Rope

The Game Has Changed, and Republicans Have to Recognize That to Avoid Disaster

But here's the real howler:

I know a thing or two about how hard it can be for strong women candidates to fight through the sexism and double standards of American politics. I’ve been called a witch, a “nasty woman” and much worse. I was even burned in effigy. As a candidate, I sometimes shied away from talking about making history. I wasn’t sure voters were ready for that. And I wasn’t running to break a barrier; I was running because I thought I was the most qualified to do the job. While it still pains me that I couldn’t break that highest, hardest glass ceiling, I’m proud that my two presidential campaigns made it seem normal to have a woman at the top of the ticket.

Hoo boy. This statement just reeks of hubris, but that's not the worst part of it. While Hillary Clinton was never the most qualified for anything she's ever done — except perhaps graft — she somehow maintains, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that she lost two presidential election attempts because of sexism. She lost those elections because, in the case of 2008, she faced a younger, more charismatic candidate — mind you, that's setting the bar pretty low — and in 2016, because she faced an unprecedented figure who had a knack for reading the rules — the Constitution — and figuring out how to win.

But mostly, Her Imperial Majesty lost because she was a horrible candidate and a horrible person. She is one of the most deeply and fundamentally corrupt political figures since Huey Long — maybe Caligula — and she not only suffers from hubris that would overshadow the Kuiper Belt and a Brobdigniagian sense of entitlement. Her 2016 presidential theme was "It's my turn, peasants!" 

And she still can't accept the fact that she lost.

We all have our criteria for selecting which presidential candidate will get our vote. But Hillary Clinton's opinion on the matter should carry no water with any voter who has enough brains to pound sand.